coco_canuck wrote:You know hockey is back when people are pissed off over a depth signing.

You know, everybody calls them "depth signings" as though the team bus will need to crash before they play. Your #7 guy needs to be decent

I find it funny people will justify any move Gillis makes yet I think one of Gillis' best moves was the subject of ridicule on boards like this- that being finding Aaron Rome. Rome was an extremely solid depth player. I don't think Barker will give them anywhere near the stability that Rome provided.

The Great Strangelove always said Rome was a great depth defensemen.

It seemed as though... half... the folks at old CC thought the same?

True the rest kicked him real hard in the proverbial groin on a regular basis.

The good thing about signing Barker is that soon he will be everybody's whipping boy!

.... which means Raymond might start getting a little slack.

BTW from Day One the Great Strangelove always kicked Raymond real hard in the proverbial groin.

Vader wrote:You know, everybody calls them "depth signings" as though the team bus will need to crash before they play. Your #7 guy needs to be decent.

Totally agreed that your #7 guy needs to be decent, but to be fair, and I hate this signing, Barker is #8 on the defensive depth chart at this point. Unless he has a great mini-camp and start to the season (and assuming to trades involving d-men are made), he'll start the season as a depth player.

Unless there are injuries out of camp, I'd be surprised if he is on the opening night roster, and he could very well be a guy who doesn't play more than a handful of games for us this season.

Vader wrote:You know, everybody calls them "depth signings" as though the team bus will need to crash before they play. Your #7 guy needs to be decent

You're assuming Barker is going to be the #7 D-man on this team for the full season.

Luongo hasn't been dealt and the season has yet to begin. Barker has been brought into the mix to see what he has but considering how fluid everything is and how unpredictable a short season is, there could be more moves to be made and the waiver wire could be really busy.

Lots still up in the air...no one has guaranteed Barker anything.

Vader wrote:I find it funny people will justify any move Gillis makes yet I think one of Gillis' best moves was the subject of ridicule on boards like this- that being finding Aaron Rome. Rome was an extremely solid depth player. I don't think Barker will give them anywhere near the stability that Rome provided.

I don't know who you're referring too when it comes justifying Gillis' every move...but I've defended Rome quite a bit and we really don't yet know if Barker is going to be the Rome replacement.

Vader wrote:You know, everybody calls them "depth signings" as though the team bus will need to crash before they play. Your #7 guy needs to be decent.

Totally agreed that your #7 guy needs to be decent, but to be fair, and I hate this signing, Barker is #8 on the defensive depth chart at this point. Unless he has a great mini-camp and start to the season (and assuming to trades involving d-men are made), he'll start the season as a depth player.

Unless there are injuries out of camp, I'd be surprised if he is on the opening night roster, and he could very well be a guy who doesn't play more than a handful of games for us this season.

That's just it.... I would have preferred Vandermeer and i'd say this is the end of the line if Barker craps the bed. That said he was in demand 2 1/2 years ago......wtf happened to the guy ? He will be # 8 d man if he stays here and if he plays for the Wolves big deal. I guess MG wanted some cheap insurance with NHL experience. I probably was feeling the effects of a hangover when i said he could replace Ballard. Cam Barker would have to do a complete 180 for that to happen.

Furthermore, Rome was really only carved up when his dad kept feeding him PP time and playing him in the top 4 all the while sandbagging a superior asset in Ballard who his GM had recently acquired. I don't think anyone had a big problem with Aaron Rome as a 6/7 guy ..... I know i didn't. I do know that I was upset that AV had a huge crush on the guy but that's about it. He could seemingly do no wrong on this team while Ballard could apparently do nothing right. I'd take Rome at 1.25 million or whatever he's getting over Ballard at 4.2..........especially considering who's coaching the team.

I'm going to choose the unpopular route and say that I like this signing.

The reality is that he's competing with Connauton for the #8 spot on the depth-chart behind Alberts. Worst case scenario, he's a depth guy with NHL experience who plays for the Wolves and we feel really lucky to have in the case of a ridiculous (but not unprecedented) run of 3-4 defensive injuries. Best case scenario, he's a guy with fantastic potential who has thus-far had his career derailed by immaturity and injuries, but who figures it out in Vancouver and becomes an important part of the team for years to come. Is the worst case scenario more likely than the best? Hell yes, by a HUGE margin, but it's a classic low-risk, high-reward option.

... Okay, worst case scenario is that he's a headcase who disrupts the room, but I think it's a highly unlikely possibility. He seems to understand that he's out of chances, so I'd be shocked if he burns this (potentially final) bridge to the NHL. Even if it does happen, we drop him without much cost.

I don't have an educated opinion about the question of him vs Vandermeer, because I haven't watched either player extensively. What I do know, however, is that this organisation places a big emphasis on having all 18 guys able to play in both ends. This means defensively responsible forwards, and quick, puck moving defensemen. I'm not trying to start a debate about this philosophy (though personally, I like it), but there's no question that Barker fits the team's ethos better than Vandermeer.

I don't like Barker but if anything he's going to be the #8 guy sitting in the press box who isn't going to see much ice. We all know Gillis likes to have 8 D-men available to him and in a condensed schedule flying someone back and forth like they often did with Tanev isn't a great option (if they even have that guy). And well in order to have a guy sit in the press box you need to pay him somewhere around the league minimum.

I'd be concenred if they were looking at Barker as being any sort of solution in the top 6 but that isn't the case. I'd love to have 8 top 4 D-men on the roster but it simply isn't going to happen. At some point a #7 is going to be a #7 and a #8 is going to be a #8.

And hey maybe it's simply a teaching moment for Connauton. A this is the type of crap play you can expect in your future if you don't figure out the defensive side of the puck type of thing.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Furthermore, Rome was really only carved up when his dad kept feeding him PP time and playing him in the top 4 all the while sandbagging a superior asset in Ballard who his GM had recently acquired.

I really think this Rome talk is blown out of proportion.

Lots of talk about a guy who played in 43 games last year, averaging 15:13 of ice-time and played a whopping 22 minutes total on the PP last season.

Ballard played in 47 games but missed significant time with injuries last year, and in the playoffs Ballard dressed over Rome as soon as he was healthy.

Edit: Not at u or LLoyd but at the perception of homerism. I agree that sometimes we seem to get behind everything MG does but I don't think that's the case here at all. I don't think he's endorsing Barker as much as the addition of depth players with some potential.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Furthermore, Rome was really only carved up when his dad kept feeding him PP time and playing him in the top 4 all the while sandbagging a superior asset in Ballard who his GM had recently acquired.

I really think this Rome talk is blown out of proportion.

Lots of talk about a guy who played in 43 games last year, averaging 15:13 of ice-time and played a whopping 22 minutes total on the PP last season.

Ballard played in 47 games but missed significant time with injuries last year, and in the playoffs Ballard dressed over Rome as soon as he was healthy.

I was referring to the season before when AV played Rome ahead of Ballard. I probably should have mentioned that. Last year , especially in the 2nd half of the season and playoffs Ballard was given a bit more of an opportunity.

As I said I have zero problem with Aaron Rome as a 6th/7th guy but he will probably get a better chance in big D.